Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Are We Allowed To Kill?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Islam shouldn't be really called Deenal Fitra if we can't even say killing a person for insulting the Nabi is wrong and murder. It ceases to be Fitra, Aqel ceases to have a role, and we ignore Fitra and Aqel over narrations. What's the difference between this religion and then religions that go against aqel and Fitra. Is Tawheed the only thing we know through Fitra and Aqel?

 

Non-Muslims have a right to be horrified from Islam when it calls death to apostates and those who insult the Prophet. It can't be said to be a moral religion...

 

It's morality is unmoral to human judgement and it's said we should submit to laws of God despite our inner morality. But that's convincing only to people who follow Islam, and not even to all of them.

 

These people instead of embracing the light of God, have embrace Rijalism and hadithism over the moral nature God has imprinted on humanity...as if God has not embraced humanity with knowledge that it's wrong to murder.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As a Muslim, I ask us all, did Muhammad A.S kill those who insulted him and hurt him during the beginning of his prophethood? No. Did Muhammad A.S not forgive the meccans who waged wars upon the minor

(salam)   Brother, there are examples in the Seerah of Rasoolillah where those who slandered him were commanded to be executed. Sure, the Prophet often illustrated forgiveness, leniancy and mercy in

(bismillah)   (salam)   Sadly, this issue is ambiguous.  Logically, a case can be made either way.  On the one hand that forgiveness or forbearance is principal and that punishment is only in special

  • Advanced Member

Islam shouldn't be really called Deenal Fitra if we can't even say killing a person for insulting the Nabi is wrong and murder. It ceases to be Fitra, Aqel ceases to have a role, and we ignore Fitra and Aqel over narrations. What's the difference between this religion and then religions that go against aqel and Fitra. Is Tawheed the only thing we know through Fitra and Aqel?

Non-Muslims have a right to be horrified from Islam when it calls death to apostates and those who insult the Prophet. It can't be said to be a moral religion...

It's morality is unmoral to human judgement and it's said we should submit to laws of God despite our inner morality. But that's convincing only to people who follow Islam, and not even to all of them.

These people instead of embracing the light of God, have embrace Rijalism and hadithism over the moral nature God has imprinted on humanity...as if God has not embraced humanity with knowledge that it's wrong to murder.

What you talking about? Use common sense

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

by the time prophet Muhammad (pbuh) won the war against non-Muslims in Mecca and entered the city, he declared that "today we are not going to revenge, but today is the day of mercy. afterward he said "there are certain places like Masjid Al-Haram as well as the house of Abu-Sofiaan in which people would be immune and would not be killed or any other punished would not take place.

 

I'd like to touch upon certain facts:

The Prophet didn't kill them, but is there a slight doubt that for instance Abu-Sofiaan did not deserve to be killed. I don't like we would have a disagreement here.

For some reasons the Prophet didn't kill him.

But we just see that he wasn't killed.

we can't judge about the event concerning what he did. He did not express that is because he merits to be alive and carry on his life.

Therefore Prophet's and Imams' acts don't tell us the reason behind that.

So probably a person who lawfully entitles to be killed , will not by the prophet's view.

So Prophet's and Imams' acts are not adequate reasons in this field.

Edited by mostafaa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Besides, many times the Prophet and Imams were not in authority to apply Shari-Allah as it is in different aspects.( The terminology used for it, is Bast Yan, بسط ید).

So we are not justified to say why they did not kill blasphemers against Prophet and Imams; that is because our Imams were not caliphs and leaders of the society that's why they couldn't apply every details  Shari-Allah and every single fact of it.

And by the time Prophet was the leader, no one dares to insult him and other sacred people; or at least we have no records out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Besides, there is a story about Imam Reza (pbuh), probably you have heard of it.

once in a session a person insulted him saying: The rain which fell down after your praying, was not related to your praying. the coincidence was just an accident. this man (pointing to Ma'moon) handed you this position or else you don't merit it.

Then Imam said I'm like Joseph whom the king gave the responsibility and power.

Imam's opponent whose name was Hajeb, answers: " you can't compare yourself with the prophet Joseph. you have to bring a different miracle. for instance you have to incarnates these two lions on the wall.

 

Imam Reza (pbuh) asked those two lions to come out of ground and kill Hajeb.

Incarnated, the two lions tore him up, then laps his blood from the ground.(عیون اخبار الرضا، vol 2, p 171)

 

What do you think about the story.

He was killed probably as a result of insulting Imam who has the divine position and was eaten by lions out of his offensive words and bad behavior.

What other reasons do you think, could apply here?

Edited by mostafaa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Besides, there is a story about Imam Reza (pbuh), probably you have heard of it.

once in a session a person insulted him saying: The rain which fell down after your praying, was not related to your praying. the coincidence was just an accident. this man (pointing to Ma'moon) handed you this position or else you don't merit it.

Then Imam said I'm like Joseph whom the king give the responsibility and power.

Imam's opponent whose name was Hajeb, answers: " you can't compare yourself with the prophet Joseph. you have to bring a different miracle. for instance you have to incarnates these two lions on the wall.

 

Imam Reza (pbuh) asked those two lions to come out of ground and kill Hajeb.

incarnated the two lions tore him up, then laps his blood from the ground.(عیون اخبار الرضا، vol 2, p 171)

 

What do you think about the story.

He was killed probably as a result of insulting Imam who has the divine position and was eaten by lions out of his bad words and acts with the Imam.

What other reason do you think, could apply here?

 

I believe in that hadith the man who accuses the Imam of not being able to create the miracle says to make the lions eat him

 

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7469

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

salam alaikum

 

i dont mind if people have a discussion on certain ijtihadi principles, keeping in mind that none of us are mujtahids

i dont mind people giving their personal views

and I apologize if I have insulted anybody

 

but to say that a certain law is against the seera of the prophet and the imams a.s., against the justice of Allah s.w.t., against logic, and to deny that the imams a.s. spoke of this law and that it was legislated, when we have many narrations that tell us they did, will necessitate the following:

  • rejection of ijma' - as explained many times, ijma' which is hujja is something in particular with certain conditions, and according to many scholars this conditions are fulfilled. but even if it is argued that the ijma' which is hujja is not present here, i have not seen any divergence/opposition.
  • rejection of multiple narrations. if we reject something so clearly mentioned in these narrations - even if we suppose that there is no tawatur - will put into doubt every hukm. if there is one hukm based on two narrations, for example, how can we accept it if we are denying something based on many more narrations? Nothing can be for sure anymore
  • ignorance of the mujtahids. because they  - according to the claims here - have not understood the seera of the prophet s.a.w.s. and the way of islam and quran. somebody on shiachat has suddenly become enlightened, and an accepted stance amongst the erudite and learned has become something which is completely against the very spirit of islam

 

nothing that has been argued refutes the claim that the death penalty is a legislated punishment for blasphemy.

 

However, one can argue how it is to be applied and in what circumstances and situations, and so and so forth.

                                       

Nobody is saying that Allah s.w.t. has mood swings, and to insinuate that from what the scholars say is disgusting. anybody who has any clear understanding of the way the sharia was introduced will see that it was introduced gradually, and it gradually became stricter against the enemies of islam, as and when islam grew in strength and prominence. many valid points have been made about this, they have been ignored. in makkah the prophet s.a.w.s could not say that the mushriks cannot come to makkah, in madina after the hijrah he cannot say this either, but after he conquered makkah in 8th year after hijrah the verse revealed in surah tawbah that the mushrikhs can no longer come to makkah and approach the haram. when those who ran away from uhud were forgiven, surah tawbah condemned those who ran away in hunayn. Does this mean that there were “mood swings”, na'oodu billah min zalik? of course not.

 

Does this mean that repentence is off the table and that Allah s.w.t. is not merciful? of course not, if somebody repents after being caught, then im all for forgiveness, but that is not the issue. the issue for me is the legislation of punishment in the first place.

 

Does this mean that this law is absolute in its nature? no not necessarily

it can be argued that it is not, as some scholars - like sheikh mufeed a.r. if i remember correctly - have said that the masoom imam a.s. has to be involved.

it can be argued that such a law only applies in a country where islam is applied without interference from the external non-muslim powers

it can be argued that it cannot apply in the lands of the non-muslim

it can be argued that it cannot apply in the time of ghayba.

it can be argued that it cannot apply when the law is in the hands of those who are not true to islam and will abuse the law for their own ends

etc

but this does not mean that such a law was not legislated in any form in the first place

 

If we refer to the most liberal ‘reformist’ scholars, such as sheikh saanei and sayyed fadhlullah, we see them speak about limited applicability of the ruling, or lack of its applicability in this era, but they do not throw it out the window completely and claim that it was never legislated in any form whatsoever in the first place.

 

finally....this forum on islamic laws is to get to understand what the mujtahids and maraje' say, so lets keep it to that.

 

the maraje' do not say to go out and kill people who blaspheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I believe in that hadith the man who accuses the Imam of not being able to create the miracle says to make the lions eat him

 

Surely it was shown to the man and he had underestimated Imam's power.

But why did Imam tell the lion to eat the man?

He has insulted Imam and wanted to humiliate him and say an Imam is not able to do it and of course he didn't tent to change his opinion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the hard worked insights, I came back to the original positions.

 

One group being for a FOR and the other AGAINST.

 

for the uninitiated, all religions and systems have the same propositions in place. Go against it, and you will face the sword. Even democracy too. Therefore it is an illegitimate excuse to leave it.

Edited by hameedeh
Please do not insult other people in your message.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

After reading the hard worked insights, I came back to the original positions.

 

One group being for a FOR and the other AGAINST.

 

for the uninitiated, all religions and systems have the same propositions in place. Go against it, and you will face the sword. Even democracy too. Therefore it is an illegitimate excuse to leave it.

 

There are plenty of belief systems that do not call for death to people who leave them...

Edited by hameedeh
Removing insult from quote.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If someone gave you a piece of paper and on it, the paper said "Follow me, I am good", you would never be able to confirm and/or understand the real, tangable truth behind the writing by simply by following the writing itself. Even if you had a second piece of paper that said "I perform kind actions", you still could not. Because you arent operating with physical reality.  Understanding of scripture is often limited to scripture itself, which doesnt allow people to truly understand Islam.

And with that lack of understanding, people will always be divided and will never understand truth (at least so long as theyre dependent or grounded in scripture).


To solve this delimma, rather than people going back and forth for a thousand years saying...oh this hadith says this and this hadith says that...people should try thinking outside of the box.  Try to find a solution outside of scripture. Perhaps think about Islam, in a different light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are plenty of belief systems that do not call for death to people who leave them...

Show me the evidence, and if you cannot I will just prove it through human nature alone. A system does not require written laws to negate the opposition. An opposition is something that shakes the fabric of a foundation, thus elimination of that opposition is part of all systems.

 

A simplistic outlook is, if  a saintly man, whose outlook is always peace and having decided to live in the peaceful abode upon the mountains, once threatened, that saintly garb of peace will be removed and a part of his human nature will take over. That nature is to defend its right to exist and follow its ideal.

Edited by monad
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Surely it was shown to the man and he had underestimated Imam's power.

But why did Imam tell the lion to eat the man?

He has insulted Imam and wanted to humiliate him and say an Imam is not able to do it and of course he didn't tent to change his opinion.  

 

The Imam told the lion to eat the man because the man told the Imam to tell the lion to eat him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And actually, because beliefs in atheism are often variable, you may even find, quite often, believers and atheists working together for common goals.

Or deism. Many religious people, even a number that culturally take on the title of a particular religion, are deist and share mutual interests and goals with believers and non believers alike. And do not necessarily have an interest in harming people that leave deism

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There was a post by struggling for light

"These people instead of embracing the light of God, have embrace Rijalism and hadithism over the moral nature God has imprinted on humanity...as if God has not embraced humanity with knowledge that it's wrong to murder.".

To me, it was as if he was recognizing that...the question of if people could or could not perform certain actions and when, how, or whether or not they were moral or not...could potentially be determined beyond "rijalism and hadithism".

If people are unable to make a conclusion with use of Hadith, then other sources ought to be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is stupid that someone thinks he is allowed to kill ! Murder is a great very great sin and someone should have a strong, very strong reason for doing it.

 

as a matter of fact allowance should come from the pious Ulema. Mahdi PBUH wanted us to refer to the pious and well-known Ulema who narrate the hadith not to the hadithes themselves.

So no one has a right to do anything unless by permission of well-known Ulema. 

 

They attacked Fatima and Ali ibn abi Talib did not say to his companions to wage war against attackers. Why !? for the sake of Islam and unity. Moreover Ali ibn abi Talib had not enough followers, unless a few.

This is the logic of Shia. 

Edited by maes
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust. 3:159

 

 

And there are some of them who molest the Prophet and say: He is one who believes every thing that he hears; say: A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful and a mercy for those of you who believe; and (as for) those who molest the Messenger of Allah, they shall have a painful punishment.9:61

 

Its interesting that this verse is specifically talking about the Muslims, especially the companions, and even then Allah does not command Muhammad A.S to kill them. The following verses confirm:

 

 Do they not know that whoever acts in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, he shall surely have the fire of hell to abide in it? That is the grievous abasement.

 

 The hypocrites fear lest a chapter should be sent down to them telling them plainly of what is in their hearts. Say: Go on mocking, surely Allah will bring forth what you fear.

 

And if you should question them, they would certainly say: We were only idly discoursing and sporting. Say: Was it at Allah and His communications and His Messenger that you mocked?

 

Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty.

 

The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the transgressors.

 

Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

ace

 

Mutawatir does not rely on the rijali conditions of the narrators, but just the quantity of connected chains. 

It seems that the Ahl ul Sunna have mutawatir hadith from the Prophet that one can wipe over the socks for salat.

One cannot object on rijali standards, as this is ruled out by the very power of tawatur.

But the tawatur does not prove the sihha of the hadith, as we know.

It still requires to be compared with other Sunna (in our case, the Ahlulbayt) and the Koran.

 

Here is a link on this: http://www.inter-islam.org/Actions/masahleather.htm

 

In the case of sabb ul nabi, even if we suppose for the sake of argument that there is tawatur in Shi'i compilations, it is ma'nawi, with no two report being the same, besides other issues.

There is also positive and negative evidence from Koran and Sunna indicating against it.

 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

In the case of sabb ul nabi, even if we suppose for the sake of argument that there is tawatur in Shi'i compilations, it is ma'nawi, with no two report being the same, besides other issues.

I agree, it is Ma`nawi - and obviously the Holy Qur`aan is takes the advantage in such such situations, but the fact is most of the academic arguements in this thread have been intellectual (aql) arguements, and in such a case the mutawatir aHaadeeth is what we take from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

What is there to answer? Your mind cannot comprehend the facts that there are laws in Islaam, proven through text. Your arguementsbare emotional, you cannot imagine that such laws exist because they seem unjust in your eyes.

As for Abu Sufyan, he accepted Islaam atleast publically. In his heart he was a munafiq...

If there were such Islamic Laws that approve of killing. That would violate the Quran. But since it is still being debated among Muslims as to whether someone has authority to kill is implying that Islam is corrupted because other Religions are pretty solid on their doctrine. I personally thought Allah sent down the Quran to save us. In addition to that, we are using the Quran compiled by Ummar instead of seeking out the compiled version of Ali's Quran (that is if it exist). I rather be following the Bible than a compiled version by Ummar which likely has verses twisted to mean something trecherous.

Also, if Islamic Law is tampering with a person's emotional feeling. Then it is self explanatory that Islam is corrupted in the way you intepret it. Another way of putting it is: Prophet Muhammad ordered killing if people went against him.

But the fact people need to debate over this already implies Islam is corrupted in the sense people are still digging for answers.

Edited by narcotic_ice
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Forum Administrators

This quote is from a book, talking about the gruesome practice of a family member killing someone in retaliation for a sin or a crime. The quote is applicable for all killing. Killing is murder and murder is wrong. Courts have laws and the accused needs to be tried and found guilty in order for the court to execute someone for a heinous crime. People cannot take the law into their own hands. 

Quote

Any crime or sin committed in an Islamic society must be dealt with accordingly through the Islamic and civil courts. Vigilantism is forbidden. Islam honors the life and the lives of all people. Taking the life of another person is considered a cardinal sin. The only person that is permitted to execute the law is a qualified Islamic judge, not a family member.

https://www.al-islam.org/a-new-perspective-women-islam-fatma-saleh-moustafa-al-qazwini/chapter-1-seeking-clarity

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
  • Veteran Member

After reading this thread I think both sides are extremes. To say that the Imams would’ve wanted us to kill blasphemers “if we do not fear harm” is Daeshi type thinking, for they themselves did not kill people who insulted them as Brother Ethics pointed out here (whether this was because they were ignorant is something we should analyse).

On 1/13/2015 at 7:03 PM, Ethics said:

One day our 4th Imam, Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) was sitting in the company of his followers when a man, who was related to him, approached and began insulting Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام). This man's name was al-Hassan Ibn al-Muthanna. Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) ignored the man and when he had left said to his companions:

"You heard what that man said to me, I would like you to come with me to hear my reply to him."

The companions of Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) then said:

"We will come with you, although we wanted you or us to say something (an equal response) to him."

Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) proceeded to the man's home reciting:

"And those who when they commit an indecency or do injustice to their souls remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their faults; and who forgives the faults but Allah, and (who) do not knowingly persist in what they have done." Noble Qur'an (3:135)

His companions hearing this concluded that Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) would say only kind words to the man. Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) reached al-Hassan Ibn al-Muthanna's house and said:

"Tell him this is Zainul Abideen." The man heard this and came out prepared for an encounter. He was sure that Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) came only to revenge his actions. When al-Hassan al-Muthanna appeared. Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) said:

"My Brother! You have come to me and have said something's. If you have said that which truly lies in me, I seek forgiveness from Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì; and if you have accused me of that which I am innocent, I ask Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì to forgive you!"

When the man heard the words of Imam Zainul Abiddin (عليه السلام) he kissed his forehead and said:

"Indeed I accused you of that which you are innocent of. These words describe me."

 

Imam Muhammad ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn had the title of Baqir, that is to say ‘One who analyzes’. He was called Baqir al-`Ulum meaning one who analyzes the knowledge. A Christian, in a mockery and ironic way playing on words of Baqir, misinterpreted to Baqara called him, “You are Baqara (cow)!” Without expressing any annoyance or anger, the Imam replied calmly, “No, I am not baqara but I am Baqir.” The Christian said, “You are the son of a lady-cook.” The Imam said in reply, “It was her job, which is not considered an insult or disgrace to her personality.” The Christian said, “Your mother was black, immodest and had an abusive tongue.” The Imam said, “If whatever you attribute to my mother is true, I pray Allah to forgive her and absolve her sins, and if it is a lie, may Allah forgive you for your lies and slander.”

Observing such a clemency from a person who had the authority to submit a non-Muslim to different persecutions was sufficient to provoke a revolution in the soul of the Christian and invite him towards Islam. Later on, he embraced Islam.[1] Al-Manaqib: 207/4.

 

When a Syrian saw him mounted on a horse, he began to abuse him. The Imam observed forbearance and did not react to his abusive language. When the fellow finished ranting to his heart's content the Imam said to him, “O gentleman! If you are in need, we can help you. If you have lost your way we can guide you. If you need a riding animal we can provide you with it. If you are hungry we can serve you food. If you require clothes we can offer them to you. If you are poor we can make you self-sufficient. If you are a visitor we can host you.”

Hearing these statements the Syrian began to weep and said, “Today I confess that you are the rightful caliph of God. I used to harbor great avarice against you and your respected father, now no one is dearer to me than you.

The other extreme would be to say that there is not punishment for blasphemy in an Islamic state. The reason I call this side extreme is because if we were to go with our own desires then we’d have to disregard a lot of our tradition. I think it isn’t far fetched to say there is a punishment, given that the blasphemy was not out of “jahl”, and was “psychological warfare”. I believe if the blasphemer is not muslim, they get the opportunity to repent and keep their faith as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The poets that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) may have killed were the same people who oppressed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and fought against them. After the message has been conveyed to them and the Prophet has performed miracles, and the polytheists have fought against the Prophet, the punishment for the former blasphemy was death. However, there was an easy way out, to say 2 sentences and your life would be freed (the shahada). Perhaps it could even be argued that these people knew that the Prophet was Allah’s messenger but rejected him due to their stubbornness.

Shibli Numani:

Quote

Hafiz Mughlata’I, enumerates fifteen names from various sources, and these in themselves are not very reliable in the opinion of the traditionists. Other writers in general have given ten names. Ibn Ishaq has given eight and Abu Dawud and Dar Qutni only six. Bukhari has described the execution of Ibn Khatal alone. This shows that the number fell with every advance in research and enquiry.
The generally current report has it that the ten persons condemned to death were criminals of the blackest water. Seven of them embraced Islam and they were forgiven. Only three were executed- two men and one woman, namely Abdullah Ibn Khatal, Miqyas Ibn Subaba [Page 200] and Quraiba, the slave girl of Ibn Khatal. Ibn Khatal first a convert to Islam, had killed a slave of his and then turned an apostate.
As to Miqyas Ibn Subaba a brother of his had been killed by an Ansari, but the Holy Prophet (p) had paid his blood-money. Later on Miqyas affected a false conversion and then found some pretext to kill the Ansari; Huwairith had created trouble for the two daughters of the Prophet (p) while they were leaving Mecca for good. He had tried to push them down from the camel’s back. He was killed by Ali. Quraiba, the slave girl of Ibn Khatal, was a Meccan songstress, who sang slanderous and defamatory verses against the Prophet (p). See Zurqani and Ibn Hisham, chapter Conquest of Mecca.

That being said, I’ve only seen Quraiba, the slave girl of Ibn Khatal, as someone who was perhaps only guilty of blasphemy being killed. The other example may be Nadhr Ibn al Harith who said his poems were better than the Quran but he was one of the generals of the Battle of Badr.

@ShiaMan14 @Abu Nur @Nad_M @Cherub786

Let me know what you think of this brothers. Thanks.

Edited by 313_Waiter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

The poets that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) may have killed were the same people who oppressed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and fought against them. After the message has been conveyed to them and the Prophet has performed miracles, and the polytheists have fought against the Prophet, the punishment for the former blasphemy was death. However, there was an easy way out, to say 2 sentences and your life would be freed (the shahada). Perhaps it could even be argued that these people knew that the Prophet was Allah’s messenger but rejected him due to their stubbornness.

Shibli Numani:

That being said, I’ve only seen Quraiba, the slave girl of Ibn Khatal, as someone who was perhaps only guilty of blasphemy being killed. The other example may be Nadhr Ibn al Harith who said his poems were better than the Quran but he was one of the generals of the Battle of Badr.

@ShiaMan14 @Abu Nur @Nad_M @Cherub786

Let me know what you think of this brothers. Thanks.

Salam.

No, we are not allowed to kill.

Only the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imams (عليه السلام) can carry out religious punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

 

Frankly, I don’t possess the in depth knowledge of history and the Prophet’s Sirah to give a detailed and satisfactory answer as to the true reasons for why certain poets who committed blasphemy against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were killed. There must be qualified scholars and historians out there who can give a comprehensive answer to this question.

My own position is that there is no punishment for blasphemy in the Shari’ah. I can point to instances in the Sirah where certain individuals committed blasphemy against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but he did not have them executed, though he had the power to do so. Consider the fact that the Quran never spells out any actual worldly punishment for blasphemy. On the contrary, it says:

وَ لَتَسۡمَعُنَّ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُوۡتُوا الۡکِتٰبَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِکُمۡ وَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَشۡرَکُوۡۤا اَذًی کَثِیۡرًا ؕ وَ اِنۡ تَصۡبِرُوۡا وَ تَتَّقُوۡا فَاِنَّ ذٰلِکَ مِنۡ عَزۡمِ الۡاُمُوۡرِ

You shall surely hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and from those who set up equals (to God). But if you show fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a (matter) of strong determination. (3:186)

The Ayah is speaking about the phenomenon of blasphemy, but there is no mention of a worldly punishment, only that Muslims should bear such hurtful remarks with patience.

Allah also says:

وَ قَدۡ نَزَّلَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ فِی الۡکِتٰبِ اَنۡ اِذَا سَمِعۡتُمۡ اٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ یُکۡفَرُ بِہَا وَ یُسۡتَہۡزَاُ بِہَا فَلَا تَقۡعُدُوۡا مَعَہُمۡ حَتّٰی یَخُوۡضُوۡا فِیۡ حَدِیۡثٍ غَیۡرِہٖۤ ۫ۖ

And He has already revealed to you in the Book that, when you hear the Signs of Allah being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they engage in a talk other than that (4:140)

I think this Ayah is even more explicit in referring to the phenomenon of blasphemy “mocking the Signs of Allah”. Notice here too there is no worldly punishment. Nevermind worldly punishment, Muslims are only instructed to leave a gathering where blasphemy is being committed, but are actually allowed to return to that gathering when the subject changes!

There is the well known incident of the chief of hypocrites Ibn Ubayy having committed blasphemy against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, his own son even threatened to punish him, but the Prophet never gave permission for even a single hair to be touched on Ibn Ubayy’s head.

So I believe the Shari’ah protects religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

There is the well known incident of the chief of hypocrites Ibn Ubayy having committed blasphemy against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, his own son even threatened to punish him, but the Prophet never gave permission for even a single hair to be touched on Ibn Ubayy’s head.

Was this pre or post the Conquest of Makkah? Is it sahih?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Nadhr Ibn al Harith

Some historians say he was captured and executed following the battle of badr in which he personally participated in, among other pagan and Quraysh notables. A wide range of reasons are given for his execution including defamation and incitement to assassination attempts against the prophet, persecution through appeals to boycott, and torturing of Muslims. Not much certainty can be established surrounding the circumstances of his death. Other reports even show him present among the defeated delegation of the battle of ta'if which occured later than Badr, even accepting Islam among other notables who then were gifted with camels as a sign of peace and good will. 

As to blasphemy, and it being a justification for death. Lets take the example of Ka'ab ibn Ashraf. He was a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, a poet of considerable fame. He used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the comunity was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women. The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularily the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities.

Kaab's animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him. He accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh

"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them".

But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions.

Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed. He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which succesfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occured after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Nad_M said:

Some historians say he was captured and executed following the battle of badr in which he personally participated in, among other pagan and Quraysh notables. A wide range of reasons are given for his execution including defamation and incitement to assassination attempts against the prophet, persecution through appeals to boycott, and torturing of Muslims. Not much certainty can be established surrounding the circumstances of his death. Other reports even show him present among the defeated delegation of the battle of ta'if which occured later than Badr, even accepting Islam among other notables who then were gifted with camels as a sign of peace and good will. 

As to blasphemy, and it being a justification for death. Lets take the example of Ka'ab ibn Ashraf. He was a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, a poet of considerable fame. He used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the comunity was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women. The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularily the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities.

Kaab's animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him. He accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh

"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them".

But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions.

Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed. He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which succesfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occured after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet. 

 

Salaam, thank you for your response.

Didn’t the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) also forgive many people who repented and said the shahada? So is there the assumption that these people did not do these things?

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...